Re: Young but distant gallaxies

Posted by Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Young-but-distant-gallaxies-tp839193p1079042.html

Gunther,

I'd welcome some clarification too.  I think there's a dilemma in that many
people don't share a way to distinguish between ontology and information.
It seems to have been the standard position of modern theoretical science
for 80 years that the two are one and the same, theoretically, i.e. making a
hopeless mess of it IMHO.  I think our best information is that information
is usually incomplete, and the common 'holes' in the apparent ontology of
phenomena and whether they're real or not, is interesting to study.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Günther Greindl
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies
>
> Doug,
>
> > I have not read "On the Origin of Objects"; I may browse it if I ever
> > have some free time.
>
> I think you would find it quite to your liking - the author himself
> would say that he is _not_ a reductionist.
>
> I have read all the comments in this thread, and I think we have been
> talking a bit past each other.
>
> The main interest here on the list seems to be in explanation and
> prediction - epistemology.
>
> My concerns with reductionism are purely ontological - as a philsopher,
> I am concerned with the ultimate nature of reality. Science of course
> can be done in lots of manners, and in the wake of logical positivism
> is
> often done in an instrumental way (I think that is quite detrimental,
> but that is another topic for another day...)
>
> So I think we were actually talking past each other: you were talking
> about levels of description (exclusively), and I was talking about
> ontology (albeit a new form of ontology, see the Cantwell-Smith book,
> which deviates very much from tratitional philosophical considerations
> on this topic).
>
> > Don't get me wrong:  I do not totally reject reductionism.  Well,
> > actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself.
> But
> > other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them.
>
> Agreed :-) Science profits from an abundance of ideas. I have never
> understood why in science everybody is bashing at each other. More
> harmony could be expected, after all, we all have the common goal of
> understanding the world.
>
> Cheers,
> Günther
>
>
> --
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [hidden email]
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org